On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:34:46 +0100, Robert Marko <robimarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 15:10, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 13:33:32 +0100, > > Robert Marko <robimarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 13:47, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2022-07-13 12:08, Robert Marko wrote: > > > > > I will look at IRQ GPIO docs, but in this case, then we have more > > > > > conversions that > > > > > are not correct. > > > > > > > > Then please point them out. > > > > > > Oh, now I get the issue, I was misunderstanding it completely. > > > gpiochip_enable_irq and gpiochip_disable_irq are not being called > > > at all. > > > > > > However, I dont see them being called before the conversion as well. > > > I am not really familiar with the PMIC IRQ-s, looked like an easy conversion > > > to get rid of the warning. > > > > They definitely were. Look at how gpiochip_add_data() eventually ends > > up calling gpiochip_set_irq_hooks((), which hijacks the irq_chip > > function pointers to insert the calls to these helpers. > > Well, that is the thing, since irqchip->irq_enable and > irqchip->irq_disable were never populated in the SPMI GPIO driver, > gpiochip_set_irq_hooks then does not insert them. > During runtime, gpiochip_irq_enable and gpiochip_irq_disable are > never used even before the conversion, that is what I am trying to > convey. It is the mask/unmask versions that would be used, with similar effects. M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
